Skip to main content
5:00 am
>> this week on the journal editorial report. president obama takes a testy turn at the podium, scolding republicans and insisting on a tax increase in any debt limit deal. will it work? plus, an f.d.a. panel rules against a popular treatment for end stage breast cancer despite emotional pleas from patients. we'll tell you what's behind the decision and the supreme court wraps up its first term with a robust defense of the first amendment. have the justices gone too far? there's a debate ahead. welcome to the journal, editorial report. i'm paul gigot. a testy president obama put as
5:01 am
the debt limit reaches a critical stage. the president criticized republicans for, in his words, refusing to get rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires for cutting off aid for the less well off. >> we choose to keep a tax break for corporate jet owners and for oil and gas companies who are making hundreds of millions of dollars. then that means we've got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship. >> paul: joining the panel, columnist, dan henninger, opini and dorothy and colin. dan, i'm beginning to wonder if the president doesn't want a showdown over the debt ceiling. he says he doesn't, but he's taking us there with this tax
5:02 am
increase issue of the what's the strategy? >> what the strategy is political, paul. i think the president is clearly in full campaign mode. we know that because he's dropping the-- full presidential mode, he uses the g. and he's in a difficult position. the dog that isn't barking in this room is that decision he made in december to extend the bush tax cuts, at a matter of politics, this has created a firestorm on the left for him. if you watch other channels, at night, they complain every single night about the bush tax cuts. the left is very upset. now, he needs them in that election. and so, i think a lot of what is going on here is politics to sm the wealthy, slam the corporate jets to appease these people. >> a deal is a deal. he says we're not going to raise from the bush rates,
5:03 am
until 2016. and 18 months before the deal was supposed to expire, he says, oh-- >> if he honors that deal the debt ceiling limit ends up as spending cuts only and the left will go insane if he only gets spending cuts. >> then if you're a republican and you've cut this deal with the president and six months later he's saying i want to redo that deal. how can you trust him on anything else? >> well, are you asking for consistency from this president. and this president is off and running on john edwards to america-- it didn't do edwards any good and i doubt with the middle class and with independents this is going to. this conference, which the president held forth, was absolutely distinguished despite w often he's done this sort of thing, this rhetoric, he has relegated people who have done so well, and a phrase he uses, and imagine america doing well.
5:04 am
>> paul: go ahead. >> i think the they thiing you he sounded sour in this press conference, is isn't the happy-go-lucky, naive guy that came in. >> hope and change. >> right, hope and change and e point he said call me naive. and i thought leaders were supposed to lead and that might have been appealing before, but it's not as appealing for a guy now living at 1600 pennsylvania. >> paul: here, james, the white house is not stupid and they poll tested this and found that corporate jets and gas and oil, billions nairs and billi millionaire defend those. >> when he says millionaires and billionaires cut off at $250,000 a year, that's his idea of millionaires. and the corporate jet reminds
5:05 am
me of jimmy carter rambling against the three martini lunch. >> paul: some of us remember that. >> and a continuing legacy of the carter years, that companies and self-employed people have to pay for half of their business and entertainment expenses after tax income. so, but we still we're 14 trillion in debt and this is a trivial mter as far as the debt is concerned, but it's pure class warfare. >> is it going to work? >> no. >> they think it will. >> think of all the people you know who are not rich by any means, who have managed to get together a million dollars in equity and hear this kind of thinking. it's out there are these people who are voters who know what they have, a million dollars does not make-- >> okay, i want to run another clip what the president had to say about the boeing case with the national labor relations board. let's listen to that. >> essentially will now be made a finding that boeing had not followed the law in making
5:06 am
a decision to move a plant. and you know, it's an independent agency, it's going before a judge so i don't want to get into the details of the case. i don't know all the facts. that's going to be up to a judge to decide. what i do know is this: that as a general proposition, companies need to have the freedom to relocate. they have to follow the law, but that's part of our system. >> paul: all right. colin, that's about a boeing moving a plant, a new plant relocating in new plant in north carolina instead of washington state and the union sued them and labor relations board intervened and said you can't move that plant. what do you make of the presidential statement where he comes out on this? >> and this statement is completely incomprehensible,
5:07 am
that's kind of the point. president obama basically shied away from addressing this issue, he knows this is an issue with the unions that's transparent and something that people can understand very well. boeing is building a new plant in south carolina, it's creating jobs. and the unions are now causing trouble surrounding that and so this is something he hasn't shied away at all in the past with battles with the unions, when wisconsin governor scott walker was battling. he didn't shy -- he wasn't shy at all saying that walker should maybe, you know, rethink his strategy. and here all of a sudden, he's dodging and weaving. >> paul: he didn't want to declare himself on it even though his appointees-- >> exactly. >> presidential campaign politics, paul. the union leadership has been publicly and explicitly upset with the president for not carrying through on card check. they're angry. if their members sit on their hands next year, he's going to lose that election. >> and the way that the republicans do? >> the point is if you get the
5:08 am
right candidate, they will make hay, with performances like this, because, this president can no longer run as a uniter, as a transcendent president. you have to show these clips of this isolation of anyone in the business or you all of these fat cats who are now equated to this is the enemy of the good and true. >> what do they do about the debt limit though? >> well, what the president going to do next, he's going to withhold, threaten to withhold social security checks and threaten to cut off funding for the military and so forth. you remember after the tax cut deal, he said the repubcans held us hostage, but it's going to be america held hostage. >> paul: that's what he said, but what do the republicans do? somebody answer that question. >> how about if somebody reminds them it's 9.1% unemployment rate. how about that? >> we're going to have to go and wait until next week to get that question answered. when we come back, the race against the cure in a big blow
5:09 am
to breast cancer patients and f.d.a. panel votes to revoke approval of a popular treatment. we'll tell you what's behind the decision next. >> and my doctor and i discussed privately. i want you to see that i'm a real person and nationde insurance. what's up ? what's vanishing deducti all about ? guys, it's demonstration time. let's blow carl's mind. okay, let's say i'm your insurance deductible. every year you don't have an accident, $100 vanishes. the next year, another $100. where am i going, carl ? thnext year... th was weird. but awesome ! ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ would you go next if you had a hoveround power chair? the statue of liberty? the grand canyon? it'sll possible with a hoveround. tom: hi i'm tom kruse, inventor and founder of hoveround.
5:10 am
when we say you're free to see the world, we mean it. call today and get a free hoveround information kit that includes a video and full color brochure. dennis celorie: "it's by far the best chair i've ever owned." terri: "last year, 9 out of 10 people got the hoveround for little or no money." ttjim plunkitt: "no cost. absolutely no cost to me." breaking news...when you call today, we'll include a free hoveround collapsible grabber with the purchase of your power chair. it reaches, it grabs, it's collapsible and it's portable. it goes wherever you go. get it free while supplies last. call the number on your screen to get your free video, brochure and your free hoveround grllapsible grabber. call the number on your screen. >> i'm 41 years old and i have hit static breast cancer
5:11 am
sgdz in 2009. i was treated with avastin and progression free for 21 months. i'm not just a piece of anecdotal evidence. i'm a wife, mother, sister, aunt, a friend and vibrant human being worthy of the dignity bei treated as such. i'm not just a statistic and it's in your hands to ensure i won't become one. >> paul: emotional testimony from breast cancer patients pleading with the food and drug administration to deep the drug avastin to treat the disease. a panel recommended unanimously that this he revoke that approval, citing dangerous side effects and poor results in follow-up studies. senior editorial page writer who has been following the story joins us with more. joe, the f.d.a. case we've been arguing strenuously that they're wrong, why? >> we know this drug helps
5:12 am
women better manage their disease. there's some dispute about how strong this affects-- >> better managed. what does the phrase do? >> progression-free survival which means that how long these women survive without their disease spreading or getting worse, but we also know that this drug has huge effects in some women over others. there are certain sub populations for whom it works really well. scientists don't understand why it works for some women and not others. we're arguing don't take it away when it helps some of them. >> paul: the f.d.a. says anecdotes as moving as they are, they're not science. the f.d.a. must care about science and overall patient population. >> sure, but the cancer drugs division said we're going to approve this if you can show
5:13 am
progression through survival. that's in over three rigorous clinical trials did show progression-free survival and came back later and changed the standards bringing up safety issues. you know, avastin does have safety issues, but they're manageable and it's really not a good reason it te it away from everyone. >> paul: you and i have been writing about this issue for probably 20, 30 years and the f.d.a. always comes back as the same old stand and you see the heart breaking stories about patients who have no alternative. and why doesn't it move the f.d.a.? >> well, the lady in our clip put her finger on the core of this problem. she said i am not just a statistic. madam, you are just a statistic because the f.d.a.'s analysis is purely a statistical analysis. all right? it's a question of whether people survive, die, or don't die. that's their standard. and that's the one they insist on her.
5:14 am
with this drug, a part of a new class of drugs more biologic biologically derived. rosch are trying to argue that people with certain biological manifestations are more likely to benefit from the drug and even benefit in quality of life. and now, this is introducing a more complicated way of evaluating these drugs. and that said, the traditional way with the old drug still takes ten years and costs a billion dollars to get a drug through the pipeline, and the f.d.a. claims they're making an attempt to understand the biomarkers, but that bureaucracy, i guarantee you, is going to fall further and further behind the science of drugs like avastin about of it gets statistical approval. >> you know, it's interesting, something called the national comprehensive cancer network, 21 leading oncology centers in america and recommend the use the avastin and the european medicine agency which is the f.d.a.'s counterpart in the european union, also
5:15 am
recommends avastin, so, there are different ways to read the evidence. >> and this is an mda problem not avastin proble >> this is a future, in a ens is of, cancer treatment, is it not? because you'll have the biological markers that come into prominence where treatments are more individual. they might work f you, they might not work for dan. so he if you do the averages, then you're the one who suffers and works for you. >> right, i mean, this is really the frontier of cancer research and new cancer drugs and it's geonomics and there's a lot of progress and advance going on right now that the f.d.a. hasn't worked into the regulatory model. >> dan, one question. i wonder if there's a subtext here, the subtext here is costments yes. >> avastin is $88,000 a treatment. that's a lot. if taxpayers pay that and survival you get on average is only, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 months. then the argument is maybe we
5:16 am
shouldn't pay for that. >> i think that raises the question of the obama health care law which is going to try to control costs through medicare. they say now there's no way they are going to repress drugs like this, i don't believe it, when $88,000 drugs like avastin, i think, are going to be pushed to the side without question. >> paul: i 'm afraid that might be true. the supreme court ends its turn and striking down a pair of state laws that trample the free speech rights of citizens. are the justices taking the
5:17 am
5:18 am
5:19 am
e. >> jamie:. >> paul: with the first amendment front and center, the supreme court straching
5:20 am
down state law justices say trample the rights of in arizona. struck down a california law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to children and in a 5-4 decision the courts continued, it's dismtling of campaign finance restrictions, declaring unconstitutional a provision of an arizona law that provides additional funds to publicly finance candidates who are outspent by their privacy financed opponents. colin, first of all, an overview of the supreme court term. was it in your view, a good successful term? >> i think it was and i think one of the things that we still haveo continue to remember here is that this court really is very much a kennedy court. >> paul: justice anthony kennedy. >> justice anthony kennedy in the majority in the vast, vast majority of cases here, i think it was over 90% of cases and whenever there was a 5-4 split he was almost in the
5:21 am
majority as well and i think that's something that's really affecting things. now, as you mentioned the first amendment really loomed large in this term as well as cases that looked at whether or not class actions could go forward. so those were two of the main themes here. >> class actions major lawsuits that draw in thousands of cases, throughout a discrimination, class action. that was a pro business decision. so let's talk about this campaign finance string of cases. it's a narrow 5-4 majority for it, but they're brick by brick, taking apart the campaign restrictions. >> it violates the government to get extra money to give up for one candidate's private funding. and the four liberal justices and justice elena kagan who argued in a round about way using the hypothetical that the prestriction of the court are not sufficient to accept
5:22 am
restrictions. that called the previous decisions into question, because if the provisions don't prevent corruption, what's the rational for taking people's first amendment rights. think about the lodge elk of this. justice kagan is saying that the more stubbornly corrupt a government is, the more authority it has to violate fundamental constitutional rights and that's perverse. >> paul: dan, on the first amendment subject, this is an interesting area of law where the ideological categories are jumbled. left moves to the right, right moves to the left and so on. this is very much a first amendment court. >> i think it is, it's the one area where you can find 7-2 decisions where the liberals join the conservatives, but nonetheless, i think you know, with the video games decision, which they defended the really hyper violent video games and first amendment protection, i worry a little bit that the court is going to run up against a storm of public opinion that becomes lessnd less patient with the fuhrs
5:23 am
amendment, i'm for the decision and we'll get into that, but i still think they're running against the tide of public opinion. >> speaking of a storm, dorothy, do you agree with the majority in that case? >> certainly not. this is one of those testimonials to the fact that there is no extremes which the supreme court will go and their religious devotion to anything claiming to be freedom of speech. and you have here a kind of exhibition in these decisions. if you have the either of the majority decisions, justice scalia arguing that the violent video games reminded him of grimm's fairy tales, homer's odyssey, this is a kind of extreme that's laughable. >> let me jump in here, a concurrence with justice samuel alito and described the content of the gams at great length and clearly justice
5:24 am
alito is disgusted at what he's saying and nonetheless joins scalia. the problem is not the amendment, but the low culture in thi area and others and the first amendment is simply there standing to afford these protections and the problem lies with the culture, not the constitution. >> i have to dispute that, dan in the sense that the lk of discrimination in these judgments, i mean, the ka capacity to discriminate, which is to tell the difference between one thing and another, is the bulwark of intellectual capacity and sorry to say that our justices have shown themselves to be mightily lacking in these first amendment cases? >> colin. >> i think 0en the fairy tale point that dorothy is mentioning to elaborate further, there's more to it than that. the point to it, the justices were saying, people used to say by watching, reading grimm's fairy tales, our children were going to be morally corrupt and there's no evidence that any of these video games are significantly
5:25 am
impacting the children. >> paul: dorothy, go ahead. >> here is one thing, there's a huge difference between children reading grimm's fairy tales and being asked to take part in a virtual exercise or being allowed to, in which you disem bowel or you can choose to rape the victim. that is, unless the victim is naked. at that point, it becomes illegal and a violation, and obscenity, so bizarre. >> paul: go ahead, colin. >> and there's certainly a role for parents though. let's remember here, who is buying these video games and responsible for the children buying them? i don't think that's necessarily the state much california. >> paul: well, and dorothy, you know, i think if you were the philosopher king i would believe in yr ability to make those disturnings, i'm not too sure that our law professors, i would trust, to make what speech is acceptable and what isn't. >> this is a faintly exotic excuse. >> paul: that's the first time
5:26 am
i've been called faintly exotic. but i'll take it. one
5:27 am
5:28 am
. >> time now for hits and misses of the week, james, first to you. >> a miss to tina brown the editor and chief of news week. in 1977 national lampoon published this cover and says jfk's first 6,000 days and a picture of 59-year-old five term president, inaugural edition. news week resurrected this cover, diana at 50's and photo shopped pictures of the princess and it's creepy, but on the bright side. maybe tina brown of newsweek will turn out to be as funny. >> and this week a new political campaign that didn't get as much notice and probably more important, he wants to overturn the em peer state ban on the type of
5:29 am
natural gas shale drilling known as fracking, it could lead to a boom in upstate new york and a big hit for american energy. >> paul: thanks, joe. colin. >> yeah, i want to give a hit to john lennon, former assistant, who basically confirmed the beatles brilliance this week when he revealed that he was a fan of ronald reagan later in life and apparently having met the gippern the '70s and thought he would be a better choice for earthquake m -- america than jimmy carter and thought he'd been a little naive earlier in his life. >> paul: you're not supposed to appropriate the beatles, that's my generation. if you have an e-mail and and thanks to my panel and for all of you watching, i'm paul gigot, we hope to see you here
5:30 am
next week. on fox news watch. >> when you start to accuse fox news of being the spokesman for the republican party, and that's when it crosses the line. >> the anti-conservative organization media matter declares war against fox news and chief antagonist david brock initiating guerilla tactics, ap disrupting because for news corporation and anti-fox effort is being paid for by tax-free funding. why is the government supporting their status and why are the media ignoring the issue. michele bachmann's rising star has mainstream media poking fun and picking apart everything she says and did they do that for the
5:31 am
president's gaffe's. the people's princess gets a star role on the cover of newsweek and the reaction is strong. >> it's haunting and quite disturbi disturbing. >> on the panel this he can woo, writer and fox news contributor judy miller, and cal thomas, jim pinkerton, yellow and fox news contributor jehmu green. i'm jon scott, fox news watch is on right now. have you heard of media matters for america? it's an anti-conservative organization funded by a guy or founded, i should say, by a guy named david brock with this stated mission. media matters for america is a web-based not for profit 501 c3 progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively mon
5:32 am
advertising and progressive resear research-- monitoring and analyze and correcting conservative misinformation in the media. the government has strict rules about organizations like that. and the liberal advocacy group appears to be in violation of those rules. james rosen has more. >> thanks for watching-- >> perhaps fox news harshest severest critic is media matters for america. mma. a d.c. group founded in 2003 by former reporter david brock conservative turned liberal and funded in part by billionaire george soros. in documents filed that o-the group described itself as charitable and educational and counter viewpoints in the media the rights of the wealthy and christian influence ideology, unquote. >> you may advocate a
5:33 am
particular point of view and may do so strongly, but you can't have it just be unsubstantiated opinion and you have to be reasonably objective about the way you present your views. so excessive language would be a factor and that the internal ref few service could look at. >> in an interview in march. brock was quoted as telling politico they'd shifted from media monitoring and quote, war on fox and mma is conducting opposition research against a dozen or so mid and senior level executives and producers and it's also instigating lawsuits against fnc and starting an operation in the u.k. to focus on rupert murdoch, the fnc's parent company and trying to disrupt murdoch murdoch's-- and drop fox urge advertisers to boycott, and a sponsorship of a boot camp for liberal
5:34 am
pundits and the last activity is key because a federal court ruled that the irs was corre correct.... >> when you sought to declare war on a media outlet. when you start to accuse fox news of being the spokesman for the republican party, which is demonstrably false, there's no basis for that. brock, in matters, makes no effort to substantiate any of that. that's when it crosses the line. >> now, fox news obtained documents showing that multiple complaints have been filed with irs as part of an online campaign filed by some on air tent. challenging the media tax exempt status these very grounds and citing procedures declining to say what action it might be taking or whether it received the challenges to the media matters tax status for one of the challenges we
5:35 am
fax'd a redted copy and withholding the information to media matters. despite receiving the tax, doug stouffer did not respond to our request to comment. >> jon: where does the group get its money. let's take a look at funding they have reported. in 2007. contributions totalled, grants and contributions i should say, totalled 8.4 million dollars for media matters and 8 million in 2008, 6.7 in 2009, and apparently, their funding sources were drying up and there may be the reason that george soros stepped in in 2010 and donated 1 million dollars for media mattersnd we don't yet know the total funding for that year. and then take a look at the story count. when you look at the number of stories, media matters for america, which is supposed to be, you know, taking a look at media misinformation, they
5:36 am
filed 2670 stories fox news, 66 regarding cnn and 48 regarding msnbc. judy, is there a little bit of a balance problem there? >> well, he think there obviously is and what's interesting is that this has been the worst kept secret in america. because ever since ben stein's article in politico appeared, with the planning membero from 2010, from david brock, which said we are going to move from an educational institution to a kind of attack fox, launch guerilla war on fox and this is fair because fox is not a news organization, it's been out there since march. and where is the rest of the heed yeah? nobody said a word. and finally, fox is starting to fight back, which is what we're seeing today. >> jehmu, where is the rest of the media on this? >> well, i think clearly, if
5:37 am
the rest of the media is going to focus on this conversation, it needs to be focused from a bigger standpoint, that conservative organizations and liberal organizations can be nonprofit. having run two progressives, political organizations, you can look at the heritage foundation or the american enterprise institute. like if we need to be having this conversation, it needs to be should nonprofit organizations have a political agenda. i actually think we should agree that we need this vibrant marketplace of ideas and there could be some on the left and some on the right, but this isn't just about media matters if you're looking at the specific-- >> do you see a problem with them having tax exempt status? >> i'm not a lawyer, but gray was interviewed in the sessionment and i've known about him. he was a law clerk for earl warren back in the 1960's, he was the lawyer and counsel to vice-president bush and president bush from 1981 to 1993. he's a very distinguished guy and knows his stuff. if he says this is challengeable, then i think
5:38 am
that makes sense. it does seem intuitive to me, and judy, i think you misspoke and said it was ben smith, opposed to ben stein. >> ben smith, sorry. >> and anybody reading that store on march 26th, gee, ger rah war and sabotage, is that what charities are supposed to be doing. >> in the 1980's, there were groups going after broadcast networks and cable shows against what they thought was pornography, bad language and nudity and the response for the left, hey, this is what you pay for the healthy first amendment. if you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to watch and now we're on the flip side of it and media matters decided if they don't like what's on fox news, force people who do watch not to watch by putting this network out of business. that's censorship. >> jon: sha just jealousy? >> no, i have to take issue with what you said. i love the first amendment.
5:39 am
we love free speech and we encourage it, but why should it be supported by taxpayer dollars? why should a guerilla war against one network be supported by taxpayer dollars. >> this isn't just about media matters. you can look at media research center, if you compare the two organizations and missions, they're doing the same thing. >> no, they're not. >> and take off-- >> they're not-- >> and a much larger conversation, the irs said you can have a political agenda as a nonprofit. they've said that this is okay for organizations like media matters and media research center. >> we have to take a quick break, first if you'd like to see more stories like these, go to our website and watch the daily bias bash with members of our panel and see what's hot in the watch list sex. up next, more about media matters and their tax-free status. >> has david brock in his anti-conservative media
5:40 am
matters website failed in their mission to analyze the media and their war on fox news? plus, wn it comes to political gaffes, do the mainstream media go overboard in their coverage? all next on news watch.
5:41 am
5:42 am
icht media matters is not a med media investigation. it's a war on fox, you're allowed to do that in a democracy, nasty as you want. the only thing is don't ask for a government subsidy. nobody wants to stop them or to shut media matters down. it's a question of whether your tax money and mine ought to be supporting it. >> jon: that's syndicated columnist charles krauthammer, a fox news contributor, commenting this week about the tax-free status of media matters. take a look what the irs rules are regarding a 5013 c
5:43 am
organization, which is what media matters is, the rules say it may not be an action organizationment may not participate in any campaign activity. has to be referred to as a charitable organization and must not be organizationed or operated for the benefit of private interests. does it meet the smell test here, jim? >> well, i mean, again, i'm not a lawyer, but i did read and judy and i were talking about this earlier, that the irs decertified 275,000 organizations last year. 275,000. so, in other words, this is a fairly standard they think that some groups for whater reason goes off the rails of what the law permits and is decertified aen this is the media, why should media matters be different than the other groups? >> right. well, it's interesting that the reason the irs gave for the dessertcation was that these organizations hadn't filed their 990 forms which tells you how much they pay their staff and what they do
5:44 am
with their money and whom this raise it from for three years, three years, after the third year the groups were out and among them, was care, which the, you know, the council on american islamic relations and which has really been a very controversial group. some people say that think of it as a group that's fighting for rights and others see it as a kind of proto tres supporting group so you can throw a group off the list for not filing a form. what about the stated purpose of your organization? >> if we're going to throw one organization under the bus we need to look at all of the organizations that need to be thrown under the bus. this is, this is not a hidden secret that there are conservative institutions and liberal institutions that hve very specific ideologies that are very supportive of, you know, different leanings in d.c. if you look at the clinton years, and what the heritage foundation did in working with
5:45 am
media partners to really push an agenda against president clinton, this is nothing new, we have to elevate the conversation away from media matters. >> i just want all of them to not to be tax subsidized and i want anyone who has a private or ideological pont point of view to wage theirs in the free market without taxpayers paying for it. >> national endowments for the arts, a l of conservatives and religious people were outraged that groups were getting tax breaks for so-called artistic works, submerging crucifixes in urine and we have preachers accused of endorsing candidates left and right, whether it's jeremiah wright or a tv evangelist. >> so, this million dollars that george soros gave media matters in 2010, he gets a tax deduction for that because
5:46 am
he's go i having to-- giving to a 5013 c organization, is that appropriate? >> i don't think that soros' agenda and making can contributions to any of the organizations is for a tax write off. that's a bigger conversation that should probably happen. so there's george soros on the left and the koch brothers on the right. we each have those that funds come from. they're not making for the tax deductions, if we take it away, we need to take it away for everyone. >> and jehmu mentioned... should read a book by matt ba b-a-i and talked about garying soros and others, media is
5:47 am
one. and jewish social justice is another and all of the other groups, it puts context on it. it's part of an overall effort. i'm not saying there's not one on right similar, but the question in all cases are they obeying the law. >> you mentioned the two organizations and glenn beck has been the favorite topic of media meters for america and had his last regular program on fox this week and media matters joined with color of change, an organization you know something about, and jewish funds for justice, and purchase taking credit for the ending of beck's show. now, it turns out that the co-founder of color of change, james rucker, served as director of grass roots mobilization for the george soros founded and he was also part of democracy alliance, which is quote, a network of investors building progressive change. that was launched by george soros. isn't that something that the media should be looking at? >> well, i think, again, you have to look at what are the
5:48 am
different institutions on the left and right and the democracy lines on the left that came out of all of the efforts in 2004 and the efforts against gary and progressive donors said we're fot going to stop by and take it and that's the infrastructure that they built and we have the same on the right. like, clearly, this has to be a bigger conversation about from an economic standpoint do we have the funds to be taking away some of the revenue that some of the nonprofits could bring in. but it's not just media matters. >> it's not just media matters. we should at this point, we're searching for federal dollars and source of revenue, and raised some questions about whether or not this isn't a pretty obvious one. >> they are celebrating in d.c. this week, color change, media matters, i did see at that they said they had a party and uns had of people showed up. they are absolutely celebrating and trying to take credit. for this-- >> and the taxpayer dollars helped pay for that. >> hopefully not for the party. >> all right. >> the money is fungible.
5:49 am
>> time for another break. up next, should the media give candidates a break when they misspeak? >> when it comes to political missteps, when is a gaffe really a gaffe? and when it comes to media coverage, who gets a pass and who gets hammered, plus, princess diana makes the cover of newsweek. is this a little too
5:50 am
5:51 am
5:52 am
>> what i want you to know is just like john wayne was from waterloo, iowa that's the kind of spirit that i have, too. it's really about not being ashamed of america, it's embracing america, loving america. >> jon: that's republican candidate for present, michele bachmann, making a slight error there. actor john wayne was actually
5:53 am
born in winterset, iowa not waterloo. >> a comrade of yours, jared monty was the first person i was able to award the medal of honor to, who actually came back and wasn't receiving it posthumously. >> jon: well, president obama misspoke about sergeant first class jared monty saying he was the first person he awarded the medal of honor to who wasn't receiving it posthumously. actually monty was killed in action. the question is which of the flubs got more press. >> let me see. of course, candidate barack obama said he had been to 57 states and he only had one or two more to go. look, here is the template here. if you're republican, if you're conservative and especially if you're christian, by definition, the media definition, you are a moron. and so any mistake you make reinforces that stereo type. on the other hand, if you're a liberal democrat secularist
5:54 am
and make a mistake, yuck, yuck, yuck, that's part of being tired on the campaign trail or tying to save america. >> jon: jehmu, you seem to disagree. >> i think it's clearly more about are you gaffe prone. if you get labeled being gaffe prone like joe biden, like harry reid, then they're going to look for those instances and that's just not barack obama. he's not a dan quayle. it's less than a liberal or conservative, it's are you gaffe prone. and unfortunately for congresswoman bachmann. she's taken advantage of it. all of this attention has helped name recognition and doing better than people expected her to do. the comparisons that we've seen though from some who have written, comparing her to bloomberg and to donald trump where it gets ridiculous. >> jon: she has better hair than donald trump. we've talked about joe biden
5:55 am
before and doozies, but usually seems to get a pass. >> the biden list is long li. and i agree with what jehmu says, certain candidates get certain reputations and the media gave them that reputation, it would be hard to statistically figure out who made the most gaffes, if you're on the trail all the time, you will make mistakes, either party, both parties and just the media pick on some and not others. >> i think, you know, thinking about those two examples there, judy, the family of john waip, i think, is probably not terribly upset she may have misidentified the place of his birth. but the family of jared monty and the president thinks he pinned a medal on this man's chest, and when in fact he came home in a coffin, is a big deal. >> it is, but the parents accepted his apology and the fact that barack obama didn't know how old his daughter was
5:56 am
strikes me as an interesting flub. >> he's not home that often, he's out playing golf. >> what struck me about the coverage of michele bachmann, she's gone from being an idiot and religious zealot and people called her in the press, to being amazing, twitter candidate, great. and you know, somewhere in between is michele bachmann. >> jon: we have to take one more break. when we come back, newsweek coverage gets strong reaction. >> the people's pncess is back in the news making the cover of news week. did they go too far this time? that's next on news watch.
5:57 am
it's haunting and quite disturbing in many ways this is sensationalism and i think it serves william and layer harry. i think they want to remember
5:58 am
their mother in fond memories. she is not here anymore. >> that is the butler reacting to the news week showing a photo shop version of the late princess walking with kate middleton. she would have turned 50 years on friday. tina brown thought it might be a good idea to sell magazines. they posted what the people's princess facebook page might have looked like, one of her friends, camilla, unlikely. from the times from london, as ton sticker, why didn't they ex human and grab the rot ted corpse? and the cover story featuring a creepy montage of the princess of wales standing by kate middleton is disgrace. what inspired inspired her to
5:59 am
become grave robber. >> that is wrap for news watch. >> good morning to you. it is july 4th, 2011. happy independence day to you and your family. i'm ainsley earhardt filling in for gretchen this morning. the first fireworks today expected in the courts and not in the skies. casey anthony's murder trial coming to a close as the jurors take the case. >> and joe biden riling up teachers against republicans. >> this is not your father's republican par. this is a different breed of cat. >> and can the v.p. win back the base in time for the re-election? plus this is the day that we celebrate our nation's independence. stay right here all morning long as we salute those brave men and women that selflessly fight for

FOX News July 4, 2011 5:00am-6:00am EDT

News/Business. Current consumer issues.

TOPIC FREQUENCY America 15, George Soros 5, David Brock 4, Newsweek 4, Dorothy 4, Michele Bachmann 4, Joe Biden 3, Boeing 3, Jared Monty 3, Grimm 3, Tina Brown 3, Kate Middleton 2, Jimmy Carter 2, Ben Stein 2, Anthony Kennedy 2, Soros 2, Iowa 2, John Wayne 2, Ben Smith 2, Donald Trump 2
Network FOX News
Duration 01:00:00
Scanned in Annapolis, MD, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Port 1236
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec mp2
Pixel width 720
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 6/20/2012